opencode_tui_execute_command

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether a live/attached TUI or active session is required, what happens when none exists, whether the command runs synchronously, or what is returned. "Through the TUI" hints at an indirect execution path but never explains it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and several near-identical siblings, the description does not supply enough context for correct selection or invocation. The prerequisite state (running TUI, active session) and the effect of the call are left entirely unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only "directory" is documented; "command" is not), and the description adds nothing about either parameter. In particular it never clarifies the expected syntax of the required `command` value (whether the leading slash is included, single vs. multiple commands), which is exactly where the schema falls short.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Execute a slash command") and adds a locational qualifier ("through the TUI"). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from equally plausible siblings such as opencode_command_execute or opencode_tui_submit_prompt, leaving the agent to guess which path is correct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With opencode_command_execute, opencode_shell_execute and the other opencode_tui_* tools in the same family, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.